Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Agency Aims to Regulate Map Aids in Vehicles
The New York Times ^ | Sunday, June 15, 2014 | Matthew L. Wald

Posted on 06/16/2014 12:41:11 PM PDT by Star Traveler

Getting directions on the road from Google Maps and other smartphone apps is a popular alternative to the expensive navigation aids included in some cars. The apps are also a gray area when it comes to laws banning the use of cellphones or texting while driving.

The Transportation Department wants to enter the argument.

The department is intensifying its battle against distracted driving by seeking explicit authority from Congress to regulate navigation aids of all types, including apps on smartphones.

The measure, included in the Obama administration’s proposed transportation bill, would specify that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to set restrictions on the apps and later order changes if they are deemed dangerous, much the way it currently regulates mechanical features of cars.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: driving; mapapps
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last
The Drudge Report says, "Obama's New War: Map Apps"!
1 posted on 06/16/2014 12:41:12 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I am sick to death of interventionist government.


2 posted on 06/16/2014 12:42:03 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Caliph Baraq:

Taking care of our every need.


3 posted on 06/16/2014 12:42:25 PM PDT by nascarnation (Toxic Baraq Syndrome: hopefully infecting a Dem candidate near you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

4 posted on 06/16/2014 12:44:12 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
What part of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal government authority to legislate or regulate any of this?

Or is NY going to do it statewide?

/johnny

5 posted on 06/16/2014 12:45:39 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

Preach it. Seems like nothing, NOTHING can come about with government meddling. Freaking tired of it in a big way.


6 posted on 06/16/2014 12:46:01 PM PDT by Ghost of SVR4 (So many are so hopelessly dependent on the government that they will fight to protect it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

I am sick to death of dodging distracted idiots yapping on their mobiles.


7 posted on 06/16/2014 12:48:05 PM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Ronnie could say simply what we all see. Where is our Ronald Reagan of today? We need him or her now more than ever!

But Reagan spent decades honing his arguments and views. Who is in wings? Do we have somebody in the wings?


8 posted on 06/16/2014 12:49:29 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

All of these bureaucrats should be fired, their offices demolished, and their departments eliminated. They have nothing useful to do.

If Johnny Boehner and the boys had anything resembling a spine, this would already have happened.


9 posted on 06/16/2014 12:50:14 PM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Commerce clause bundled with “Necessary and Proper” makes all things possible.


10 posted on 06/16/2014 12:50:23 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
That certainly wasn't the founder's intent.

/johnny

11 posted on 06/16/2014 12:51:16 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

They’ve got to know where to send the drones.


12 posted on 06/16/2014 12:51:59 PM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Oh dear.

Your attitude, and your ( I assume) support for regulation is how it happens. Then you look up, and instead of just doing what you do, people are asking “is this legal” before passing gas and taking a step.

Creativity and innovation are stymied, independent thought is destroyed, and the government bigger and more expensive.


13 posted on 06/16/2014 12:52:32 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

Agreed and I’ll go a few steps more.

I am sick and tired of people who think they can drive but can’t drive a stick shift or understand the dynamics of motion.

Want to drive an automatic? Fine, learn on stick first. Earn the privilege to drive an automatic. Same with self driving cars.


14 posted on 06/16/2014 12:54:40 PM PDT by prisoner6 (Stop the Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

I don’t know what you are trying to say but it sounds like you don’t like having traffic laws. Maybe you would prefer anarchy?


15 posted on 06/16/2014 12:54:53 PM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

From Wiki, on the arguments for the ratification of Necessary and Proper:

The draft Necessary and Proper Clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution’s ratification. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a “dead letter”. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace individual liberty.[3]

I am with Patrick Henry on this.


16 posted on 06/16/2014 12:55:36 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
I am sick to death of dodging distracted idiots yapping on their mobiles.

Me too, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

17 posted on 06/16/2014 12:56:26 PM PDT by FreedomOfExpression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

I think traffic laws are a necessary evil. A minimalist approach is to be encouraged.

A government big enough to solve every problem is a government big enough to cause tyranny.

But do what you want.


18 posted on 06/16/2014 12:57:37 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6

So you want to make some new laws right? Because we don’t have enough?


19 posted on 06/16/2014 1:02:06 PM PDT by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept? Vive Deco et Vives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
This is clearly a case where the federal government is overstepping its bounds, and infringing on the police powers of the States.

Your simplistic either/or nonsense ignores the constitutional role of the federal government.

/johnny

20 posted on 06/16/2014 1:03:46 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson